Stormwater Management Practices

How do they work and where should they

be used?
October 25, 2010

James Houle, CPSWQ, Robert Roseen, PE, PhD, Thomas Ballestero,

PE, PhD, PH, CGWP, PG, Alison Watts, PhD, Tim Puls

Environmental Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering

University of New Hampshire

Why the Center Was Created

Three-Year

Study of Conventional Systems

Study Found That

34%
Of the time
systems offered
some kind of
treatment

26%
Of the time
systems did
nothing

40%
Of the time systems
exported more
pollutants

Systems failed
2/3 of the time!

UNHSC Third-party evaluation

Imagine the Ultimate System

Sonic Swirl Enforcer

It Cleans!
It Disinfects!

It Will
Geteverything in its path
eliminating
You the Job!
5

No Need to Reinvent this Wheel

Use Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)

Physical Operations
Biological Processes
Chemical Processes
Hydrologic
Operations

Watershed Impacts:
Major Stormwater Contaminants
Sediment
Pathogens
Nutrients
Toxic

Contaminants
Debris and Floating Litter
Temperature Alterations
Chloride

Economic impacts of land use change

(increased runoff)

1.) Loss of revenue due to impacts to

tourism and natural resources

2) Expenses from stress to municipal

infrastructure

Great Bay
August

2009
the Great Bay
was added to
the 303 d list
for Nitrogen
Estimates
range in the
tens of millions
to comply with
effluent limits

Primary Causes of Runoff Increase

CAUSES
Land Use ChangesIncrease in
impervious cover
Changes in storm depth, duration,
and frequencyIncreased rainfall
depth and runoff volume
ADAPTATION SOLUTIONS
Land use management strategies
to mitigate runoff volumes
combination of Gray and Green
infrastructure
10

The Three Components of

Effective Stormwater Management
Effectiveness

1.

2.
3.

Site Planning/Land Use

Source Controls
Structural BMPs

Structural BMPs
1.

2.
3.

Appropriate Design
Installation
Maintenance

Research

examining impacts of climate change on rainfall

depths (28-60% increase) demonstrated existing urban
infrastructure (culverts) will be under-capacity by 35% (Guo, 2006)
This in addition to stressed stormwater infrastructure from land
use change

15

Gregg Hall 35 Colovos Road Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3534

603.862.4024 http://www.unhsc.unh.edu

Dedicated to the protection of water resources through

effective stormwater management

Research and development of stormwater treatment systems

To provide resources to stormwater communities currently involved in design

and implementation of Phase II requirements

Who We Are

scientists

17

engineers

educators

What We Do
BMP
Performance
Monitoring

18

Targeted
Research

Outreach

Annual Reports

Outreach Materials

Fact Sheets

Web Resources

http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev

or just google UNHSC

Journal Articles

Design Drawings

Design
Specifications

BMP Performance Monitoring

Research Field Facility at UNH
Tc ~ 19 minutes

UNHSC
Research
Facility
Watershed
Boundary

Bioretention
Retrofit
Tree
Filter

Porous
Asphalt

20

Parallel
Performance
Evaluation
Each system uniformly sized
to treat 1 runoff for 1 acre of
impervious area
WQV=3300 cf
Qwqv=1 cfs

Uniform contaminant loading

Uniform storm event
characteristics
Systems lined for mass
balance
Long term record of
hydrology and contaminants

Hydrodynamic Separator

Porous Asphalt

Gravel Wetland

Isolator Row

Pervious Concrete

Sand Filter

Subsurface Infiltration

Filter Unit

Retention Pond

Stone Swale Veg Swale

Bioretention Unit

Tree Filter

Performance

TSS Removal Efficiencies

TSS % Removal Efficiency

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

DIN Removal Efficiencies

DIN % Removal Efficiency

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

TP Removal Efficiencies
TP % Removal Efficiency

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

TSS Removal Performance

Nitrogen Removal Performance

Phosphorous Removal Performance

Hydrologic
Performance Results

Swale Flow and Volume Attenuation

Average Annual Peak Flow Reduction is 48%

Average Annual Lag Time is 19 min

Porous Asphalt Flow and Volume

Attenuation

Average Annual Peak Flow Reduction is 68%

Average Annual Lag Time is 790 min

Hydraulic Performance
Peak Reduction (kP)

Lag Time (kL)

5

0.5

0.1

34

Questions

Targeted Research
pavement
sealants

36

cold
climate

thermal
impacts

Cold Climate
Performance Results

Seasonal Variations in Performance

Gravel

Vegetated Swale

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Summer
Winter
Annual

TSS

TPH-D

DIN

Zn

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Summer
Winter
Annual

TSS

TP

Settling Velocity [cm/s]

T = 0 C Hi [Cl] Stormwater

90%
4
80%

3
70%
60%

Summer

2
50%

Winter

40%

Annual

30%
20%

10%
0
0%

50
TSS

100

Diam eter [m icrons]

TPH-D ParticleDIN
Zn

DIN

Zn

TP

Hydrodynamic
RetentionSeparators
Pond

Bioretention II

T = 30 C FreshWater
100%

TPH-D

150

200

TP

The effect of T and [Cl-] is to nearly double

the settling time from 1.6 to 3.4 cm/sec

100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%

Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Annual
Annual

TSS
TSS

TPH-D
TPH-D

DIN

Zn
Zn

TP
TP

Frost Penetration

Can be related to pavement failure

Measured with a field-assembled

frost gauge (Ricard et al., 1976)

Show relationships between

pavements and soils
39

Filtration Systems Frost Penetration

1/25/05

2/4/05

2/16/05

2/25/05

3/8/05

3/15/05

3/28/05

30

20

10

10

15

20

-10

25

-20

30

-30
Sand filter
Rain

Bioretention I
Freezing

Gravel Wetland
Ave. Temp
40

Temp (C)

Frost Depth (cm)

1/13/05

Porous Asphalt Frost Penetration

41

Chloride Levels in First Order

Receiving Stream (Durham, NH)

There

are now 5 chloride

TMDLs in the US
Chloride is toxic to aquatic life Acute
No

BMP targets removal

Chronic

Where should reductions occur?

Sources of Salt Loading
From Vehicular Surface Deicing
(Rockingham County, NH)
(NHDES 2007)
3%

27%

Parking Lots

9%

Private Roads
Municipal Roads

11%

State Roads

50%
Other

PA/DMA Snow & Ice Cover

PA

PC in sun

Lots one-hour after plowing, -4*C

DMA

PC in partial
PC in shade
sun
44

Resistance
Skid%
Ice Cover(BPN)

% IceResistance
Cover
Weighted Skid
(BPN)

100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
00

Dense Mix Asphalt

Porous
Asphalt
Dense
Mix Asphalt

Porous Asphalt

100100

50

50

25

25

SaltApplication
Application
%%Salt

Skid Resistance (BPN)

Weighted Skid Resistance (BPN)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Dense Mix Asphalt

Porous Asphalt

100

50

25
% Salt Application

Effective Salt Reductions

2006-2007

Pavement
Type

2007-2008

AntiIcing
Apps.

Deicing
Apps.

AntiIcing
Apps.

Deicing
Apps.

DMA

15

14

23

PA

15

PC shade

PC - sun

Reductions Possible
when compared to
DMA with
100% App. Rate
App.
Rate

Average
Mass
Reduction*
(06-08)

22

100%

0%

23

27

25%

75%

23

31

100%

-20%

23

23

100%

-2%

* Reduction possible with no loss in skid resistance (safety)

Maintenance

What is Maintenance
Often Maintenance
only occurs when there
is failure
There is a perception
that LID systems require
more maintenance
Some claim LID
systems fail and will
require expensive repairs
Our current practices
have a high degree of
failure and significant
cost impactshowever
we are familiar with it

Long-Term Maintenance

All advanced stormwater systems require

maintenance

LID maintenance is often simple, low cost consistent with

standard landscaping practices

Homeowner/landscaper education

Consider requiring permanent sureties

Fine filter media systems may have reduced service life due
to cloggingeasily servicedsand filters and bioretention

Factor of safety for clogging 3-4 reduces maintenance

sensitivity

Current installations for Bioretention up to 15 years

Gravel wetland large diameter stone reduces maintenance

sensitivity

PAHs And Parking Lots: A Field Study on PAHs

Exported From Sealed and Unsealed Parking
Lots at the UNH Stormwater Center

Sealcoat What is it, and why do we

care?
Thin, non-permanent layer, applied to
enhance appearance
Two common types
Asphalt-based (asphalt resin, ball
clay, silica)
Coal tar-based (coal tar, ball clay)
Coal tar - High PAHs - 50,000 mg/l total
PAHs (City of Austin, 2005)
Asphalt sealant 50 mg/l total PAHs

First Flush samples collected during the first rain event

EPA Surface Water Quality Criteria for total PAHs = 300ug/l

5,890 g/L

642 g/L

4.39 g/L

Sediment Samples
Unsealed control
9 acres

Coal tar sealant

0.3 acres

Sample locations, concentrations in mg/kg

Pre sealant - Oct 2007
9 months after sealant June 2008
12 months after sealant Oct 2008
30 months after sealant April 2010

4% of watershed sealcoated

1.58
95.7
89.6
9.96

NOAA Effects Range Median = 44.7 mg/kg

3.08
51.2
58.3
27.8

1.3
10.9
4.62
3.6

0.4
27.1
4.18

0.69
1.61
4.32

4% of surface sealed
109-162 mg/kg
(Gravel Wetland, Bioretention, Detention Pond)

Unsealed
1.6 mg/kg
(Bioretention)

100% of surface sealed

390 1,700 mg/kg
(Tree Filter)

55

Mass Balance Stormwater

Mass Balance

B Lot:

Total Mass of PAHs (16)

C-Unsealed
A-Sealed
B-Sealed
9 acre
0.3 acre
0.25

Mass of PAHs applied: 9 kg

1. Oct-Dec
0.05
0.59
1,000 liters
applied07
2. Dec-June
08 and contractors
0.18 estimate)
0.27
(by volume
estimates,
3. July-Dec
08 18,000 mg/kg
0.1=> 9 kg PAHs
0.18
Concentration
(dried)

50%

4. Jan-June 09
5. July-Dec 09
remaining
Total per lot on

lot:

0.4
0.5
4.51.23
kg

lost

0.16
0.21
1.41

0.09
0.06
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.54

Mass in stormwater runoff: 0.5 kg

Verified by volume: 1,000 liters applied
volume of sealant particles in tree filter
less than
100Approximately
liters.
Wear:
25% of sealant remaining on A lot, 50% remaining on B lot.

Where did the rest go?

PAH Concentrations in Surface Soil

and Dust

Total PAH (EPA 16)

<10 mg/kg
10-100 mg/kg
>100 mg/kg

Total PAH = 411

Benzo(a)pyrene = 29.2

EPA PRG Industrial screening level

for benzo(a)pyrene = 0.21 mg/kg

Just what
exactly is your
point?

100% Removal???
There are no silver bullets
Designs should be based on
regional watershed and water
quality objectives. (think locally
act locally!)
We are moving beyond 80% TSS
removal:

Nutrients, PSD, effluent

concentrations

Summary Conclusions

LID systems function well in cold climates, seasonal

variations are observed for conventional BMPs and
Manufactured systems

Infiltration and filtration systems have the highest removal

efficiency

The standard of practice is moderate at best, and low

especially for stone lined swales

Cost of advanced SWM can often be balanced with related

savings

Qualified engineering oversight is needed to assure proper

installation and construction

Funding
Funding is provided by the Cooperative Institute for
Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology
(CICEET) whose mission is to support the
scientific development of innovative technologies
for understanding and reversing the impacts of
coastal and estuarine contamination and
degradation.

Questions?

Porous Pavements
Porous Pavements

Aggregate gradation: No fines

added to mix
Air voids: 18-20%
Cold climate and WQ functionality
dependent on sub base design
Long-term FX dependent on
production, not maintenance

Pervious Concrete

Placement is challenging and

requires certified installers
Compressive strength:
3000 psi at 7 days
Concrete is very resistant to aging

Porous Asphalt

Modification of Open Grade

Friction Course (OGFC)
Asphalt binder often modified
(polymers, fibers) but not
necessary
QC production at plant is crucial,
install is simple

Porous Asphalt Residential Lane, Pelham, NH

(Source: UNHSC)

Parking Lot with Standard Aisle and

Porous Asphalt Stalls, Morris Arboretum,
Philadelphia, PA (Source: CH2M HILL)

Porous Asphalt Commercial Parking Lot,

Greenland Meadows, Greenland, NH
(Source: UNHSC)

Porous Asphalt Section of State Highway,

South Portland, ME (Source: ME DOT)

Porous Asphalt Path, Grey Towers

National Historic Site, PA
(Source: CH2M HILL)

Porous Asphalt Basketball Court,

Upper Darby, PA
(Source: CH2M HILL)

64

Typical Porous Pavement Parking Lot

System Cross-Section
4 of porous asphalt
4 thickness of crushed stone
8-12 thickness of open graded
reservoir subbase

4 thickness of > crushed stone for frost protection

Soil permeability >0.5 in/hr
Diverged from design guidance for use of filter coarse for
improved water quality function
Common base stone is 1-3 minus bank run sand and gravel used
here

How Do They Really Work?

43 in rainfall event in 3 minutes!

State of the Practice

Significant

advancements in PA strength,
durability, an cost have been achieved
Large increase in significant PA installs for
light duty, residential, commercial, and
state road applications
However, a large number of installations
STILL continue to be sub-standard

67

Why So Many Poor Installations?

Porous pavements are an filtration/infiltration
system as well as a transportation surface.
Because of dual functionality:
Greater site evaluation and design effort

Strict engineering oversight and skilled

personnel through all phases of the project
Requires a comprehensive maintenance
schedule
68

Common Pitfalls
Inappropriate

PA mix selection WRT to

durability leads to raveling and low durability
Poor subbase compactiontendency to
under-compact due to concerns regarding
infiltration leads to rutting
Poor asphalt compactiontendency to
under-compact due to weaker subbase
leads to low pavement durability
All issues can be addressed through qualified
engineering oversight
69

50

40

30

0
50

40

0.03
0.03

30

2.96 in depth

0.06
0.06

0.6 in depth

Flow (gpm)

D-Box Flow

Flow (gpm)

20 20

Effluent Flow

0.09
0.09

D-Box Flow

Precip

Effluent Flow

10 10

0.12
0.12

Precip
0

0
0 0

500 200

1,000 400 1,500

600 2,000

0.15
0.15
1,000
3,000

800
2,500

Time(min)
(min)
Time

70

(in)(in)
Precip
5-Min
Precip
5-Min

Hydrologic Performance

Repairs and Replacement

Damage can occur to PA from non-design

loads
Repairs may be needed from cuts for utilities
Repairs can be made with standard HMA for
most damages up to 15% of surface area
PA can be repaired by heating and rerolling
at $2000/day at approximately 500 of trench
When pavement reaches end of life, it is
replaced by milling to choker coarse.
March 25, 2010

71

Used for repairs

around manholes,
catch basins, and for
reworking rough
pavement areas
Asphalt in the repair
area can be raked and
rolled back into place
and additional hot mix
can be added when
Repairs cost ~$2000

March 25, 2010

72

Cost Information

~10-20% more for materials

2009, DMA $75-100/ton, PA $89-125/ton placed
by machine for parking and residential road and
driveways
Complicated jobs with handwork are more
expensive
DMA $2.25/sf, PA $2.80/sf, not including
subbase
Costs offset by lack of stormwater infrastructure
Cost break even is achieved when designing for
quantity management ~Q10-Q25
73

Lamprey River 100 Year Flood Risk Project

Project Objectives:
Assess flood risk associated with combined land use and
climate change scenarios in the Lamprey River watershed.

Produce maps at the municipal scale of the 100-year flood

risk boundaries and river discharge at specific locations.
Demonstrate the use of associated products to support land
use decision-making in coastal communities.
Serve as a model for other watersheds across New England.

Current Newmarket 100 Year Floodplain

Lamprey River 100 Year Flood Risk Project